Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC209

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

9^th November 2007

The Attorney General

-v-

Mel Owers (Painters and Decorators) Limited

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The Defendant company was contracted to carry out exterior redecoration of a property and, on 5^th May, 2007, that involved Mr Phillips ("the victim"), an employee of the Defendant company, power washing walls and a chimney stack.

In order to undertake this work, the victim used a triple extension ladder and roof ladder for access, and carried out the cleaning using a power hose.

To clean an area of wall at the junction of two different sloping roofs the victim climbed the first ladder carrying the power washer gun and lance in his hand and then accessed the roof ladder.  He then commenced cleaning of the aforesaid wall, working up towards the ridge whilst standing on the roof ladder.   After reach the ridge, the victim started back down the ladder, cleaning the top of the wall.

It was whilst he was doing this that he fell, head first, from the roof onto the tarmac driveway.  The height from the eaves of the roof to the driveway was 9 feet 2 inches.

When the property owners' son found the victim lying on the floor, on his side, he was conscious and groaning.  The victim was taken to the hospital for treatment to his injuries.

These included a deep laceration of the scalp, a "seriously unstable" splintered fracture to a vertebra in his neck, as well as facial fractures.  The neck fracture had to be stabilised through external fixation (Halo system) which he wore for several months.

The victim is now making a steady recovery from his injuries.  His neck fracture has healed well although he is still under medication for pain.  He is also receiving physiotherapy.  He is still off work although the Hospital consultant has indicated that he hope that he will be able to return to work next January.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea at earliest opportunity, no previous convictions, breach not motivated by desire to cut costs.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

These are the general sentences and observations.

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. C. Gollop for Defendant Company.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Falls associated with roof work apparently count for more deaths and injuries in the construction industry than any other activity.  In this case the defendant company permitted its employee, Mr Phillips, to power wash a gable wall and roof stack standing firstly on an unsecured extension ladder and secondly standing on a roof ladder.

2.        Consideration was not given to providing a safe system of work either by erecting scaffolding or by the use of a mobile elevating work platform, both of which are readily available in the Island.

3.        Whilst standing on the roof ladder cleaning the top of the gable wall, Mr Phillips toppled and fell head-first some ten feet suffering serious injuries including a deep laceration of the scalp, a seriously unstable splintered fracture to a vertebrae in his neck as well as facial fractures.  It appears that he is making good progress towards recovering and will be returning to work this January.

4.        The Court has repeatedly stated and the law requires that employers have a strict duty to ensure the safety of their employees as far as is reasonably practicable.  In this case there were two methods of ensuring Mr Phillips safety that were reasonably practicable and which were not considered.

5.        However, we have listened carefully to the mitigation that is available to the defendant company.  It has a very good safety record with indeed no record of injuries or accidents from as long ago as 1986.  There has been a prompt admission of responsibility and a timely plea of guilty, and the company has taken steps to ensure that this kind of accident will not happen again.

6.        We also take into account that Mr Phillips was himself a very experienced employee who clearly felt that the risk that he was taking was acceptable.  We accept that this was not a cost cutting exercise.  Notwithstanding the importance of ensuring safety at work, and having considered all of these mitigating factors, the Court does feel able to reduce slightly the conclusions of the Crown.

7.        The Company will therefore be fined £10,000 with costs of £2,000 making a total of £12,000; and payable within one month as we note from the accounts for the year ending 31^st December, 2006, that the company is able to meet this fine.

No Authorities